Made with Love

Go Amy Leibovitch and Valerie Scott

Go Tim, LET THEM HAVE IT.

THEY SHOULD ALL BE FIRED!!!
 
Tim from the Adult Entertainment Industry stated


KNOWING IT IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGED

IT IS MALICIOUS INTENT ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!!


GO TIM I LOVE THIS GUY!
 
Bill C-36 witnesses for Wed July 9, 2014
July 9th 9:30am-11:30pm

Adult Entertainment Association of Canada
- Tim Lambrinos, Executive Director Ontario Region
- Rudi Czekalla, Consultant

Mothers Against Trafficking Humans
- Glendene Grant, Founder

Sex Professionals of Canada
- Amy Lebovitch, Executive Director
- Valerie Scott, Legal Coordinator

York Regional Police
- Eric Jolliffe, Chief of Police

Gunilla S. Ekberg, Lawyer
University of Glasgow School of Law

July 9th 11:30am-12:00pm (In Camera)

York Regional Police
Thai Truong, Detective
Drugs and Vice

July 9th 1pm-3pm

Sextrade101
- Bridget Perrier, Co-Founding Member

Chris Atchison, Research Associate
Department of Sociology, University of Victoria

Resist Exploitation, Embrace Dignity (REED)
- Michelle Miller, Executive Director

Georgialee Lang

Prostitutes Involved, Empowered, Cogent - Edmonton
- Elizabeth Dussault, Member

July 9th 3:30pm-5:30pm

Jeanne Sarson

Linda MacDonald

Exploited Voices Now Educating
- Trisha Baptie, Community Engagement Coordinator

Northern Women's Connection
- Larissa Crack, Co-founder
- Heather Dukes, Co-founder

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
- Josh Paterson, Executive Director

PACE Society
- Sheri Kiselbach, Coordinator Violence Prevention
- Laura Dilley, Executive Director
 
York Regional Police is up now.

This is going to be very telling how this will affect us right here in the GTA.
 
York Regional Police

"He is happy he now has the tools to be tough on pimps and JOHNS", that us folks.

Right here in the GTA!!
 
I take it back about Tim, he's an idiot. He's trying to get the massage parlors shut down for his own gain!
 
HUBGFE member to address C-36

Researcher Chris Atchison, coming up this afternoon, will provide thoughtful and rational analysis on the topic of sex safety and security in striking contrast to the hysteria mongers.

You'll recall Chris became a member here last fall (and on other boards) to introduce his survey on pay-for-play. Many of us took part in that survey. His research focused on clients. Another researcher conducted a similar survey of SPs. No doubt his remarks will include statistical evidence supporting a sociological argument revealing lack of logic in C-36.

Let's hope his cogent comments don't fall on deaf ears.


 
Art Mann said:
HUBGFE member to address C-36

Researcher Chris Atchison, coming up this afternoon, will provide thoughtful and rational analysis on the topic of sex safety and security in striking contrast to the hysteria mongers.

You'll recall Chris became a member here last fall (and on other boards) to introduce his survey on pay-for-play. Many of us took part in that survey. His research focused on clients. Another researcher conducted a similar survey of SPs. No doubt his remarks will include statistical evidence supporting a sociological cover all the bases.

Let's hope his cogent comments don't fall on deaf ears.



AMEN
 
I wonder if Parliament and the media are surprised by the number of intelligent, articulate people speaking up on behalf of the industry? Hmmmmmm
 
Ms. Sarah said:
I wonder if Parliament and the media are surprised by the number of intelligent, articulate people speaking up on behalf of the industry? Hmmmmmm

We are :SayWhat?:
 
Art Mann said:
HUBGFE member to address C-36

Researcher Chris Atchison, coming up this afternoon, will provide thoughtful and rational analysis on the topic of sex safety and security in striking contrast to the hysteria mongers.

You'll recall Chris became a member here last fall (and on other boards) to introduce his survey on pay-for-play. Many of us took part in that survey. His research focused on clients. Another researcher conducted a similar survey of SPs. No doubt his remarks will include statistical evidence supporting a sociological argument revealing lack of logic in C-36.

Let's hope his cogent comments don't fall on deaf ears.



His comments as reported by Erica Obsession:

PROFESSOR CHRIS ATCHISON – VICTORIA

  • His research focuses upon adult consensual services in the sex industry. He believes that the majority of sex work is non-exploitative. He argues that the smaller portion that is exploitative should not dictate the terms for the entire industry.
  • He argues that limiting advertising can be problematic because lack of information can create violence through miscommunication.
  • Criminalizing the purchase of sex only displaces the activity to more dangerous locales. It also reduces the likelihood of sex workers reporting abuse and clients reporting underage sex workers.
  • He argued that clients can be victimized by sex workers or industry owners/managers.
  • He thinks that the industry should be treated just like any other and regulated with an emphasis on health promotion and harm reduction.
  • He believes that funds should target the violent aspects of the industry not the consensual relationships. Also, without a framework for better public education then there will only be an attempt to curb demand solely through legal means.

Thanks for speaking up Chris!


:YMAPPLAUSE:
 
Thanks to reverdy for posting this:

A technical paper by the Department of Justice about Bill C-36 and how its provisions should be interpreted.

TECHNICAL PAPER - Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

(Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act)

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/protect.pdf
 
Ms. Sarah said:
Thanks to reverdy for posting this:

A technical paper by the Department of Justice about Bill C-36 and how its provisions should be interpreted.

TECHNICAL PAPER - Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

(Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act)

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/protect.pdf

There's a detailed definition of what constitutes 'sexual services' on page five of this paper.

"To determine whether a particular act constitutes a “sexual service for consideration” or “prostitution”, the court will consider whether the service is sexual in nature and whether the purpose of providing the service is to sexually gratify the person who receives it. Specifically, a contract or agreement, whether express or implied, for a specific sexual service in return for some form of consideration is required. In particular, the consideration must be contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service and the contract or agreement must be entered into before the sexual service is provided. Sexual activity involving no expectation of getting paid for the services provided does not meet the test. Sexual activity in the context of ongoing relationships also fails to meet the test, unless the evidence shows that the alleged consideration was contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service. In one case, gifts given to the complainant were not viewed as consideration for sexual favours rendered, but rather as gifts given “dans le cadre plus large de la relation affective entre l’accusé et le plaignant”. Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another.

The following activities have been found to constitute a sexual service or an act of prostitution, if provided in return for some form of consideration: lap-dancing, which involves sitting in the client’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse; masturbation of a client in the context of a massage parlour, whether or not the client climaxes; and, sado-masochistic activities, provided that the acts can be considered to be sexually stimulating/gratifying. However, jurisprudence is clear that neither acts related to the production of pornography, nor stripping meet the test. In most cases, physical contact, or sexual interaction, between the person providing the service and the person receiving it is required; however, acts for which consideration is provided that take place in a private room in a club and that are sexual in nature, but do not involve physical contact between the “client” and “performer”, such as self-masturbation, have been found to constitute prostitution."
 
Ms. Sarah said:
There's a detailed definition of what constitutes 'sexual services' on page five of this paper.

"To determine whether a particular act constitutes a “sexual service for consideration” or “prostitution”, the court will consider whether the service is sexual in nature and whether the purpose of providing the service is to sexually gratify the person who receives it. Specifically, a contract or agreement, whether express or implied, for a specific sexual service in return for some form of consideration is required. In particular, the consideration must be contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service and the contract or agreement must be entered into before the sexual service is provided. Sexual activity involving no expectation of getting paid for the services provided does not meet the test. Sexual activity in the context of ongoing relationships also fails to meet the test, unless the evidence shows that the alleged consideration was contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service. In one case, gifts given to the complainant were not viewed as consideration for sexual favours rendered, but rather as gifts given “dans le cadre plus large de la relation affective entre l’accusé et le plaignant”. Another case held that the phrase “sexual services for consideration” is not intended to apply to consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another.

The following activities have been found to constitute a sexual service or an act of prostitution, if provided in return for some form of consideration: lap-dancing, which involves sitting in the client’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse; masturbation of a client in the context of a massage parlour, whether or not the client climaxes; and, sado-masochistic activities, provided that the acts can be considered to be sexually stimulating/gratifying. However, jurisprudence is clear that neither acts related to the production of pornography, nor stripping meet the test. In most cases, physical contact, or sexual interaction, between the person providing the service and the person receiving it is required; however, acts for which consideration is provided that take place in a private room in a club and that are sexual in nature, but do not involve physical contact between the “client” and “performer”, such as self-masturbation, have been found to constitute prostitution."

FUcking nut jobs, the way this is written every kind of act is basically not allowed including lap dances-holy shit!
 
Analme said:
FUcking nut jobs, the way this is written every kind of act is basically not allowed including lap dances-holy shit!

It would also seem to include Dominatrix services.

Hard to believe getting paid to have sex to make porn is excluded.

What a mess. :don'twantto-see:/
 
This law will not work because the sex industry will not go away just like alcohol, drugs and guns. We will still be fucking for money and forever.
 
Back
Top Bottom